Talk:First Things

Fair use rationale for Image:Rubon179.jpg

Image:Rubon179.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor?

The masthead of the December 2010 and January 2011 issues no longer lists Joseph Bottum as the editor. James Neuchterlein is listed as "interim editor." I don't recall an announcement being made in the magazine itself --?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.41.212 (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Student7 (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Neoconservative

I need a citation for the claim the First Things is a neoconservative journal, since that's a pretty big claim for a publication that almost never touches on foreign policy. I put a citation needed tag, and I will eventually remove the descriptor if nobody can dig any sources up.Pretendus (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Neoconservatism is not only about foreign policy and, in fact, early neocons had no interest in foreign policy. Of course, anyway, we needed sources and I selected four that clearly describe FT or its editors as neoconservative. Among the contributors, even though, as I said, neoconservatism is not necessarily connected to foreign policy, two editors of FT, Michael Novak and George Weigel, have been consistently engaged in foreign policy debates. --Checco (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I also feel this is not justified. Even when some contributors are considered neoconservative, that doesn't make the journal neoconservative as well. And some of the sources you list clearly describe the contributors, not the magazine. Irwing (talk)

In fact, the article reads "to some extent, neoconservative". First Things is neoconservative in its original meaning. For twenty years the newspaper was edited by Richard John Neuhaus, who was a renowned neoconservative, and it took neoconservative positions in the religious debate ("neoconservative Catholicism" has been a sort of via media between traditionalism and progressivism—see for instance this "authentic" interpretation by George Weigel), in domestic policy and foreign policy (just think of the Iraq War, which was actively promoted by Neuhaus on FT—see here). --Checco (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

References

I noticed a number of references are the url to a Google Book link. I though editors might be interested in a tool which takes a link as input and creates a (usually) properly formatted ref.

Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books

I used it to improve two such references.

It really helps creates a much cleaner list of references. I hope you will try it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirects

I've redirected Institute on Religion and Public Life here instead of to Richard John Neuhaus, because First Things is the main project of the institute. I erroneously thought the Institute itself wasn't mentioned at all in the RJN article, it actually is, but I still think this is a better target than the general RJN article until an actual IRPL article itself is written.--Jahaza (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Neuhaus era and afterwards

I have no idea what the alleged Peter Hitchens controversy is about, but in general terms, "First Things" has gone off in a different direction after the death of Neuhaus, and the article should report on it. Apparently Neuhaus kind of kept things in a kind of delicate balance by the force of his personality, and his successors have been less successful at doing what he did, or wanted to do something different. Anyway, it seems to be more of a generic right-wing publication now... AnonMoos (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment and have considered adding something to the page regarding this, but I've had trouble finding reliable and NPOV sources on this -- most of the sources I've found charting the shifts in FT are blogs or even social media posts. Do you have a sense of what sources may be appropriate? Certainly the sources on Reno's Covid-related controversy are more numerous, but that's covered on Reno's page and is not obviously a sign of a shift in the magazine generally (I happen to believe it is, but it's about finding reliable sources, again). CasualUser10 (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)